Civil Engineer

$50–100/hrrate as listed

Review and grade AI-generated civil engineering work — structural calculations, code citations, site plans, and design narratives — flagging where the model's reasoning or numbers break down. Work is project-based and remote through micro1's expert network, with observed rates of $50–100/hr depending on specialization and licensure.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You'll spend most of your time reading model outputs against engineering ground truth. A typical task might be a load-path calculation for a two-way slab, a stormwater detention sizing problem, a retaining wall stability check, or a written response about ACI 318 or AASHTO LRFD provisions. Your job is to determine whether the answer is correct, whether the method was appropriate, and — most importantly — to explain precisely where it went wrong. Vague feedback like "the math is off" is not useful; "the model applied a 0.9 flexural reduction factor to a shear-controlled section" is.

Assignments vary by contract. Some are pure grading and ranking of competing model responses. Others ask you to author reference problems with worked solutions, or to write adversarial prompts that expose failure modes in areas like code-version confusion, unit handling, or geotechnical assumptions. Rubric calibration sessions and disagreement resolution with other reviewers are common on longer engagements.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable credentials. A civil or structural degree is the baseline; PE licensure, SE licensure, or an EIT with strong project history materially affects both selection and rate.
Depth under follow-up. AI-led screens probe a claimed specialty with successive questions. Saying you do bridge design invites questions about fatigue categories, deck rating methods, and which specification edition you worked from.
Written clarity. Your critique becomes training signal. Reviewers who write tersely and cite clauses tend to get repeat work.
Honest scoping. Overclaiming breadth across structural, geotech, transportation, and water resources usually reads as a flag rather than a strength.

Logistics

Fully remote and largely asynchronous, with tasks pulled from a queue against weekly commitments — commonly 10–20 hours, sometimes more during batch pushes. Expect a short paid calibration period before volume ramps. Pay is hourly or per-task; the $50–100/hr band reflects rates observed across similar micro1 engineering engagements and is not a guarantee for any specific contract.

What they look for

Code compliance
Civil Engineering
Technical documentation
Constraint reasoning

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a Bachelor's degree or higher in civil engineering, structural engineering, or a closely related engineering discipline (e.g., architectural engineering, construction engineering)?
Civil or structural engineering degree · required
Are you a licensed Professional Engineer (PE), licensed Structural Engineer (SE), or an EIT with at least two years of verifiable project experience in structural or civil engineering?
PE or SE licensure, or EIT with project history · preferred
Has the majority of your professional experience been in one or more of these areas: structural design and analysis, geotechnical engineering, stormwater and water resources, or foundation engineering?
Primary domain in structural, geotech, or water resources · required
Have you used ACI 318 (concrete design) and/or ASCE 7 (loads and site conditions) as the governing standard in at least two live projects?
Code-level familiarity with ACI 318 and/or ASCE 7 · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 12 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can articulate the actual engineering judgment involved, not just name-check software or formulas. The listing values precision; vague project narratives suggest you won't write precise feedback.
A strong answer: You name the specific component (e.g., a reinforced concrete beam, a pile cap, a masonry wall), the loads you calculated or were given, the code or standard you applied (with edition), and the controlling limit state or failure mode. You explain why you chose that approach over an alternative.
Where people lose it: You describe the project in generic terms—'I designed a structure,' 'we used SAP2000'—without showing you understand the engineering decision-making that went into it. You cannot give clear feedback on model outputs if you cannot articulate your own reasoning.